The US only has two political parties and they are both, secretly, pro immigration.
The EU is actually clamping down on it because of populist/far right parties. I know someone who runs a Thai restaurant and he cannot fly in a cook from Asia. He has to find someone from Europe.
It seems like you already understand what dual intent means- it's both a temporary working visa and a path to a Green Card. Yes, the government issues I-140s to H1-Bs, which are another step on the path to a GC. The government has an entire series of steps laid out for H1-B visa holders to follow to get a Green Card. I think just Googling 'H1-B dual intent' is going to give you more info than I could realistically fit in a comment here
> it's both a temporary working visa and a path to a Green Card.
It's not though. It's a DoS policy wrt of issuing non-immigrant visas.
>Yes, the government issues I-140s to H1-Bs
So? The government issues I-140s to non-H1Bs too. Not having any US visa and never having set foot in the US is "a path to Green Card" if H1B is one too.
>I think just Googling 'H1-B dual intent''
I was hoping you'd do that and find for yourself how wrong you are.
This might not be a fruitful discussion because I get the impression you're a bit ideologically dug in on this. I would like to think my subject matter expertise is reasonably high given that this intersects with my IRL job. But yes:
"Congress enacted INA § 214(b) in 1990, explicitly excluding H-1B visas (under INA § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)) from the presumption that nonimmigrant applicants are intending immigrants. Unlike most nonimmigrant categories requiring proof of no immigrant intent, H-1B omits any foreign residence requirement in its definition, enabling holders to pursue permanent residency without jeopardizing status" https://global.temple.edu/isss/faculty-staff-and-researchers...
"The Immigration Act of 1990 created the modern H-1B program as a "bridge" to green cards, allowing immediate work while navigating permanent residency processes that included labor tests. Senate Judiciary Committee reports emphasized streamlined H-1B procedures without recruitment delays to avoid productivity losses, with senators like Arlen Specter and Slade Gorton highlighting needs for quick access to skilled talent. This dual-intent design responded to prior issues, like the Schwartz case, where immigrant intent prosecutions prompted the 1990 carve-out" https://www.cato.org/blog/why-congress-rejected-h-1b-recruit...
I am just factually dug on this. You are correct that H1B applicants can intend to immigrate. It's what "dual intent" means. It does not mean the H1B is an immigrant visa or a "path to a Green Card" like you claimed originally. The CATO is not a government and them saying it's a "bridge" is not different than redditors saying so. This is why I asked you for a government statement. There is not one, because it's illegal to immigrate without an immigrant visa, which H1B is not.
"The key move was Congress’s amendment to INA §214(b), the provision that says every visa applicant is presumed to be an intending immigrant unless they prove otherwise. In 1990, Congress inserted an exception for H(i) and L nonimmigrants — i.e., it carved them out of that presumption. The current codification notes still show that this came from Pub. L. 101-649 §205(b)(1)" https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009...
Congress also added INA §214(h). In the 1990 Act, that new subsection said, in substance, that being the beneficiary of a preference petition under §204, or otherwise seeking permanent residence, does not count as evidence that the person intends to abandon a foreign residence for H(i)/L purposes. That is the clearest statutory confirmation of dual intent.
"Congress originally intended H-1B to permit temporary work status while also allowing pursuit of permanent residence. The House Judiciary Committee report reinforces that reading. It had a section titled “Dual Intent” and explained that this problem was especially burdensome for H and L beneficiaries, and that the bill treated the filing of an immigrant petition as not, by itself, proof that the person meant to abandon a foreign residence" (attached link is the legislative history) https://niwaplibrary.wcl.american.edu/wp-content/uploads/HR-...
You asked and LLM but don't seem to be able to understand the reply. Again, you proclaimed that dual intent means something else initially.
>"H-1B is “coming temporarily,” while permanent residence is handled through the employment-based immigrant categories in §203(b) and adjustment under §245(a)"
Exactly! Do you even read what you pasted from the prompt?
The EU is mostly clamping down on asylum seekers that are abusing the procedural rules, despite not having a solid claim on asylum.
Think of someone from a place that isn't nice enough, but well above the threshold of absolute shitshow with genocidal aftertaste that allows protection. Such people, by virtue of claiming to require asylum get temporary protection and right to residence and then clog the system by appealing everything ten times with the obviously foreseeable result of not being granted anything. The current idea that is supposed to solve everything is hosting the immigration ghettos offshore (surprise surprise) to not upset the local population until the positive decision is made.
Right populists are mostly riding the racist feeling and the idea that the actual legitimate asylum seekers are undesirable, because they are Muslim, because immigrants leech on the system and all that, plus the actually observable existence of ethnic (organized) crime.
All at the same time, the tech immigration is very easy as long as you get an offer. No quotas, no 100k shakedown, not even a degree requirement or a language test, just someone willing to fill the form and pay like 500 bucks in processing fees and pay you the above media salary. Family immigration isn't restricted either and partners of citizens and immigrants get right to work (because what else they would do here, lol).
But the actual non-fancy low-skilled low-paid immigrants are either EU citizens from less affluent side of the continent or the (former) asylum status holders (which is straight path to citizenship most of the time). Packages have to sorted, garbage trucks have to be driven and cheaply. But sure, anti-immigration attitudes we have.
So yeah, the only sure way to fly in a Thai cook is to marry her or give her husband a tech job.
Yeah, before open borders became a left thingy, it was called free market so local business gets that cheap labor. Now, once the profits are booked is the time of the classic switcheroo -- put the negative externalities on the society and blaming the left for trying to deal with them.
> asylum seekers that are abusing the procedural rules, despite not having a solid claim on asylum.
Out of curiosity, isn't that the same case as what happened with the Biden immigration surges, at least Venezuela? And now the current administration is taking action?
I'm not familiar with the American context enough to answer that. My understanding is that US was always very lax with immigration enforcement, where a lot of people are neither given the legal rights nor deported, while EU (mostly Western part of) was more willing to give some sort of legal residence, so people can pay taxes, fines and have incentive to learn the language. I don't really understand what was the problem with giving residence permits to the refugees from Venezuela in the first place, but again, I'm not familiar with this circus.
They weren’t that lax with immigration enforcement, Biden was the exception, Obama deported a ton of people, enough so to get the “deporter in chief” moniker.
Also, you can pay taxes without legally residing in the us it seems.
The EU is actually clamping down on it because of populist/far right parties. I know someone who runs a Thai restaurant and he cannot fly in a cook from Asia. He has to find someone from Europe.